The Democrat’s Iraq Dilemma
By Daniel DiRito | Related entries in Foreign Policy, General Politics, Polls, The War On Terrorism, WarPolling shows that the war in Iraq is the single most important issue to voters as we move towards the November midterm elections. The latest NBC/WSJ poll clearly points out the importance Iraq holds as Democrats attempt to craft a meaningful message that will convince voters to give the Democrats control of the House or the Senate.
Indeed, it’s clear that the situation in Iraq will be on voters’ minds as they head to the polls in November. Asked which one or two issues will be most important in deciding their vote for Congress, 53 percent of registered voters said Iraq. That was followed by illegal immigration (at 32 percent), abortion (at 21 percent), and tax cuts (at 19 percent).
Given the opportunity presented by the inability of the Bush administration to demonstrate sufficient progress in Iraq in order to begin troop withdrawals, it becomes critical how the Democrats construct and deliver their ideas on Iraq and it may well determine their success or failure to resume a majority position. At the moment, there isn’t a consistent Democratic message…despite today’s assertion to the contrary by Nancy Pelosi on CNN. Pelosi, in her best effort to date, argued that the Democrats are in agreement that 2006 must be a year of transitional ideas that provide a clear set of measures to begin the exit process from the troubled country. While her statement is an accurate compilation that succeeds in encompassing the varying Democratic positions, it remains to be seen if the voting public perceives the broadly worded statement as a real plan they can embrace. The San Francisco Chronicle discusses the Democratic dilemma here.
(06-14) 04:00 PDT Washington — In a span of 90 minutes Tuesday, three prominent Democrats offered competing visions of how to proceed in Iraq and displayed how difficult it will be to turn what was once the Republican Party’s strongest asset into its electoral downfall.
As President Bush was returning from his surprise visit to Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading contender for the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination, told a gathering of nearly 2,000 liberals that the war was a “strategic blunder” but warned it would not be in the nation’s interest to “set a date certain” for withdrawal.
She was followed by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who told the same group the war was a “grotesque mistake” and that troops should be withdrawn “at the earliest practical date.”
Moments later, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party’s standard bearer in 2004, said he had made a mistake by voting to authorize the president to use military force in Iraq, and he called for a “hard and fast deadline” for troop withdrawal.
The Chronicle has done an excellent job of capturing the dilemma faced by the Democrats. Can voters discern a Democratic plan out of what will likely be a constant litany of conflicting statements? If they don’t, will Democrats have squandered their best opportunity in recent years to win back control of at least one branch of government?
Read the rest of the posting at Thought Theater by linking here:
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 14th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, General Politics, Polls, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:35 am
If I had to pick something that would make me go for a Democratic approach to Iraq, it would be an incentive program to get more American investment over there to develop Iraq’s infrastructure, while also putting a higher profile the development that has already been done by the US Army. While several things drive Iraqis to violence, economic hardship is one motivator over which I think America could exert the most leverage.
Meanwhile, keep the criteria for withdrawal that Bush advocates: we can leave when Iraq’s government and security are stable.
You think a Democrat would do that?
June 15th, 2006 at 11:27 am
All politics are local – including Congressional elections. So the lack of a “Democratic vision” is not necessarily a handicap for a Democratic candidate. A Democrat who knows what he or she believes can run on that, regardless of the position on the national party on the issue.
In the specific case of Iraq, a Democrat might, for example, argue that now that we are there we need to start acting like we have some coherent plan (ANY coherent plan) for actually winning. And that applies regardless of the merits, or lack of merits, or going in originally. It wouldn’t be a cut-and-run position, but it certainly wouldn’t be a position of support for the current policy either.
A new Congress has to start from the state of the world when they arrive. Just as it does no good to say the the levees around New Orleans _should_ have been designed and built to cope with a hurricane — the issue at the moment is “what do we do NOW about the levees?” How we got where we are is relevant only if part of your program is taking legal action against those who got us there — and you have to be running for a position which actually gets to make decisions on that.
June 15th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I love how a political party, or members of that party need to “craft” a position on Iraq based on how they think they public will vote in national elections. It doesn’t really matter what is the right thing to do, or what will make the country safer, even if it is an unpopular position.
Will tough talk on Iran isolate the much needed midwestern soccer-mom demographic? Michigain has a large Lebanese voting block in Detroit that could swing the electorate there; will recomending sanctions on Syria hurt or help us in the upcoming congressional elections? Hmmm…better do more polling data.
June 15th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Jimmy,
I’m sure you realize that your obervation applies to both parties, lest you try to imply that only Dems do that.
I do agree though that crafting a response sucks, but you probably should have noticed by now that happens a lot in politics – sort of like when Bush had to craft a reason for going to Iraq in the first place. The difference is, that in this case, I believe some of these Dems are actually just saying what they believe to be the best plan in their opinion. Clearly, based upon all the complaining (and insults, boos and hisses) from people in their own party, Dems aren’t purposely trying to craft a plan that just sounds good. (If they are – they are more inept than anyone thought).
June 15th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Paul,
I think your comments emphasize my concern…you offer more specifics than the Democratic Party. I’m worried that the broad message will be interpreted as no plan at all.
WJ,
You make a valid point, however the Democrats still have difficult regional obstacles to overcome. Take for example the Tennessee Senate race where Democratic Congressman Harold Ford is running. He has taken what one could call Republican positions on marriage and the possible constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and will likely have to be careful in positioning himself on other issues due to the fact that Tennessee is predominantly Republican. Nonetheless, his is an uphill battle because the state and the region think nationally when it comes to electing a senator. The fact that he is a Democrat will not go unnoticed and he will be tied to the national Democratic positions regardless.
In the end it is still a numbers game…if the Democratic Party can’t change minds from a national perspective, they will have a much harder time doing so locally. In my opinion, the Democrats lost the South based upon voter disagreement with the broader national views of the Democratic Party message more so than one locality or one local issue at a time. Perhaps it’s akin to the chicken or the egg argument.
Jimmi,
Certainly principles are meaningful and perhaps they have unfortunately become an obscure consideration to many politicians. I understand your distaste for “crafting” a message, however my point was not to insinuate that the content of the message should be contrived; rather that Democrats have an obligation and an opportunity to give the voters a clear and concise message upon which an informed decision can be made. My concern is that if they don’t, voters may conclude that the Republican position, despite the poor results, is still more coherent and therefore less of a risk.
Like it or not, our electoral system tends to be reductionist…voters want short and sweet sound bites upon which to make decisions. Whatever the chosen position, it still needs to be delivered and that is a crafting of sorts. My fear is that voters will decide that Democrats haven’t a message. My other concern is that with regards to wartime elections, voters tend to think nationally when making decisions. Democrats may garner fewer votes if the Party doesn’t have a clear message on the war.
As a friend once told me, it is always best to give ones strategy the added benefit of being based upon the truth. I tend to think politicians could succeed with that approach. I try not to kid myself into thinking that what I’m hearing from any politician is based upon an attempt to provide truth as opposed to a calculation of what a majority of voters want to hear. Once again it seems like the chicken or the egg equation…does a politician tell us what they believe or what they think we want to hear and how can the voter discern the difference? Without a message, it is impossible to even begin making that determination.
Thanks for your insightful comments and observations. I fully enjoy the dialogue.
Daniel
June 15th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Meredith,
I missed your comment while responding to the others. I agree with your observation that politics is filled with “crafting”. That’s unfortunate and seemingly difficult to correct. Once we acknowledge as much, we still must return to the larger objective…how do we win? I don’t endorse wholesale deception and I tend to believe a message based upon conviction is always stronger than one that is contrived.
If we generally think Democrats would better serve our interests, we as a group need to agree on a message with which we can win. If I succeed in determining the Party message but the Party loses, what has been won? I may feel better but is that sufficient? I appreciate the diverse thought within the Democratic Party…but I want to win some elections so we can put some of our ideas into action. My remarks are intended to bring focus to that very important reality.
We have two new conservative Supreme Court Justices who may impact us for a generation. I often attempt to determine what compromises I would have made or am now willing to make in order to change what has happened or to effect what is yet to happen. If I lose some battles to win the war, I will gladly do so. My fear is that Democrats, in their inability to reach consensus, will miss this current opportunity and we will continue to be unable to effect any of the many changes we value and wish to enact.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Daniel
June 15th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Daniel,
I agree completely about the problem with Dems not reaching a consensus. I am relatively new to the party, as only 3 years ago I was still a republican, but I have noticed that a lack of consensus has been a consistent problem with Dems. I also agree that because of the Supreme Court, Dems just need to get in to office, or checks and balances might not be there anymore.
One thing that might help is for Dems to not attack each other just because they don’t have the same positions on issues such as the Iraq war. The attacking part certainly calls attention to the fact that they disagree, which is not at all helpful to say the least.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
The republicans seem to be united towards iraq, and have shaken off the Pat Buchannan-style isolationism that divided the party during the balkan crisis in the 90’s. Whether during American support for the war it its beginnings, or now when the polls say Democrats would be better off handling security issues, Republicans as a party have held fast to the “as Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down…no timetables” position.
The problem is, that the Democrats are the liberal party of America, which means they are plagued by the Kos-Kidz, and their main platform is tolerance. By taking a firm stand on the Iraq issue, they will naturally isolate the opposition group which would not be very tolerant.
Half the Democrats will harp on and on about pulling out or setting a timetable, but as soon as the Republicans put their demands to the floor of the Senate, they clam up, overwhelmingly vote against what they just advocated the night before and blame Bush for their decision. It just happened again the other day. Its like they are begging to be in second place all the time.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
While Daniel is assuredly right, it bugs me a bit that the very failure of the Pres/GOP ensures difficulty for the dems. The reason that there isn’t a unified message from the Dems is that the place is a mess and there is a dearth of clearly articuable, practical options. So we’re supposed to choose “stay the course/no end but victory” because it sounds better despite the little problem of not working?
A neat trick, all told.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Daniel, specifics are indeed the name of the game to me. The more general version of what I wrote would be “stay the course and build a more stable Iraq”. The problem there is twofold. One, that’s pretty much the Republican position, so voters would have no differentiator. Two, general statements sound like just that to me: general. Yeah, we’re going to lean in that direction. Sorta. Haven’t really nailed down anything yet. But rest assured! We’re leaning.
To me, saying you’re leaning means you could easily lean the other way once you actually win office, and make that waffle politically stick. Saying you’re going to do specific things A, B, and C tells me you weren’t just talking about it; you actually thought about it enough to arrive at some tangible actions to take in that direction. And now there’s a commitment there. It’s politically much harder to back out of taking specific, promised action. This is a good thing. It means I can actually feel more confident about changing my vote.
The actions I proposed above represented something the Dems could actually get behind – if they have the will. It differentiates from the Reps. It happens to deviate radically from the apparent Dem leaning, but then, I qualified this as being what would make me vote for them. (I also happen to think it would work for more than just me. I sincerely believe “troops out now!” is a minority position.)
Pooh says the place is a mess. But I don’t think it’s a complete mess, and the stuff I read tells me there -is- room for specific action. Meanwhile, as long as the best Democratic position is “it’s a mess, so we’ll just truck along, fix whatever looks fixable, and if we can’t, hey, we’re not culpable because it’s a mess”… then I’ll continue to go with the party that at least doesn’t have a vocal contingent advocating withdrawal at all costs.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Pooh says the place is a mess. But I don’t think it’s a complete mess, and the stuff I read tells me there -is- room for specific action. Meanwhile, as long as the best Democratic position is “it’s a mess, so we’ll just truck along, fix whatever looks fixable, and if we can’t, hey, we’re not culpable because it’s a mess�… then I’ll continue to go with the party that at least doesn’t have a vocal contingent advocating withdrawal at all costs.
First, you’re misrepresenting my position – individual Dems have ’solutions’ it’s just not clear that any of the proposals are likely to work because of the unstable situation.
Second, instantly rejecting withdrawal as an option is intellectually dishonest – if you weight the costs and benefits relative to other courses of action it might not be the best option available (on balance, I’m really not sure. I think things could be done, I just don’t see any of the players on our end actually doing them.) But to not even consider it on the merits is silly.
Finally, what’s the affirmative case for letting the GOP “stay the course?” This is related to my second point. Yes, withdrawal is objectively bad. But is it relatively worse then staying?
June 16th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
My suggestion to the dems is to stop living in the past – by the past I mean the sixties and seventies. Iraq is not Vietnam, period. And this ain’t the good old days. When I see the so-called leadership of the dems pandering to the Hollywood elite, the Michael Moores and Mother Peace herself (Cindy), I want to puke.
Nancy Pelosi recently complained about the cost of the Iraq war – 2500 GI’s killed and the billions spent over 3 years. Well, on 9/11 in the space of about 3 hours, 3000 innocent Americans were killed and our economy took a 3 trillion dollar hit. That was pure loss. At least in Iraq much has been gained – a brutal dictator gone and replaced with a fledging democracy, terrorists being fought and destroyed in their own part of the world instead of ours, and a strong message to the wannabe terrorists that if you attack us, we won’t run away with our tail between our legs anymore, we’ll hammer your ass.
I also suggest that the dems follow the lead set by Bush after 9/11 when he had an approval rating of 90%. Be a strong leader with an intense focus. Be willing to persevere even when it’s difficult. As my grandpa said, those things in life that are most worth doing are always the most difficult.
Or the dems can continue to pander to those folks who still think it’s 1969. And we can abandon what we’re doing in Iraq just like Nam. That resulted in the death of millions, a far greater moral outrage than parading a few naked prisonors around with woman’s panties over their heads. After we abandon Iraq, then we can sit back, watch and do nothing again as millions more are butchered. If that’s going to be the dems bold new plan, I sure won’t be voting dem ever again.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Pooh: “Finally, what’s the affirmative case for letting the GOP “stay the course?â€Â? This is related to my second point. Yes, withdrawal is objectively bad. But is it relatively worse then staying?”
[Sorry for not seeing this sooner. Maybe you won't either, given the date, but I figured I should at least try to respond.]
Yes, I think withdrawal is relatively much worse than staying.
Logistically and militarily, the contrast is probably not so stark, from my limited viewpoint. We could probably make a case that a staged withdrawal would allow our military to recuperate, recharge, and rebuild. Thus strengthened, our military would be better able to handle any future conflicts, should they arise. Meanwhile, that portion of the violence in Iraq that is motivated by anger at foreign occupation would disappear, although the portion which is motivated by sectarian hate might increase to the extent that it is a net loss – however, almost none of those losses would be American.
Politically, however, I find it utterly disastrous to withdraw. Again, the intra-Iraq violence would escalate. Zarqawi’s replacement would declare a huge victory, rally huge sentiment, and likely head a political force in Iraq. Former Baathists would either ally with him, or form a potent party of their own. Peace talks between Israel and Palestine would stall. Islamofascist elements from Libya to Pakistan would take withdrawal as a sign of American and Western weakness, and their ranks would grow. The campaign in Afghanistan would encounter an newly emboldened enemy, and casualties there would increase. Iran would grow similarly bolder, and its government’s nuclear ambitions strengthen. Iran and North Korea would become much harder to negotiate with.
In the meantime, American Democrats would see withdrawal as a sign that peace can indeed be given a chance, and press their message to “stay -that- course”. The drawbridge would be pulled up, and our military, now on a peace footing, would be under no pressure to be expanded or improved, so its funding would reduce on the premise that diplomacy should be given more focus. Should another attack on the US occur, the doctrine of peace at all costs will be that much more entrenched, meaning we’re back in a 1996 mindset, and wasted over ten years of our time. The world would become much less safe as a result.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:52 am
best weight loss programs
Learn quick weight loss tips to lose 28 pounds within 3 weeks.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:41 pm
best weight loss plan
Gynecomastia or man boobs can be removed naturally without expensive surgery. Find out how.